The Supreme Court on 8 July raised serious concerns over a 1993 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) policy that prevents pregnant Indian Police Service (IPS) probationers from continuing their training. The Bench observed that a welfare measure intended to protect women should not be used to deprive medically fit officers of training opportunities. The Court also asked the Union government to clarify whether IPS officer Urvashi Sengar can now be permitted to join Phase II training.
Background of the Case
Urvashi Sengar, a 2023-batch direct recruit IPS officer allotted to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, challenged the constitutional validity of the MHA's Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 23, 1993. The policy requires women IPS probationers who become pregnant during training to discontinue the programme and resume it only one year after childbirth.
According to Sengar, she delivered her child on September 20, 2025, and sought permission to attend the Phase II training scheduled to begin on June 22, 2026. She claimed she was medically fit but was denied permission because of the 1993 policy. She then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed her to participate in the training subject to medical fitness and completion of formalities. The Union government challenged that interim order before the Delhi High Court, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
Hearing the matter, the Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar questioned the manner in which the 1993 Office Memorandum was being applied.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Bench observed,
"This is a beneficiary provision under law for protection of women and not to take away the right to undergo training if they are fit for it."
The Court further questioned the Centre's stand, asking,
"When the purpose of this OM is to enable training of a fit woman, then why are you stopping her if she is fit?"
The judges also expressed reservations about applying a uniform rule to all women officers after childbirth. The Bench noted that recovery differs from one individual to another, indicating that medical fitness should be assessed on a case-by-case basis instead of following a rigid waiting period.
During the hearing, counsel for the Union government opposed any relaxation of the policy, arguing that granting relief in one case could lead to similar claims from others. On the other hand, Sengar's counsel submitted that exceptions had previously been granted to officers such as Anupama James and Arti Singh despite the existence of the 1993 Office Memorandum.
Supreme Court's Interim Direction
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court issued notice in the petition. It directed the Additional Solicitor General to obtain instructions from the Union government on whether Sengar can be permitted to join the training at this stage, considering that the Phase II programme had already commenced on June 22, 2026.
The Court ordered that the matter be listed again on July 10, 2026 for further consideration.
Case Details:
Case Title: Urvashi Sengar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22724/2026
Judge: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Decision Date: July 8, 2026
-300x169.webp)
